Asymmetry in political thinking

[ivwshane]

I read enough of it.


Or are you going to go on your usual pattern of continuously making shit up out of thin air to discredit anyone who doesn't agree with you? We've been down this path before. Want to go another round?

I stand by my comment.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Do you see now the problem eskimospy with the Right leaving an ideological stance and entertaining this? In the space of one post, we've gone from people here illegally, plus bringing/having children here illegally (and Yes, I know having a kid here is not illegal, but, the kid would never have been here had the parent not been here illegally, so it's the same affect), to 'Horrible Righty, you're not a Native American, so who are you to say your established country should take exception and - gasp - take action to prevent itself from being illegally invaded by a neighboring country?'

Instead of starting from what should be, and then working back towards it with realistic compromises to get as close to what should be as possible, the line has already been drawn that if you don't support "immigrants" (notice how the word illegal got dropped off there), you're basically xenophobic. How does one compromise with the other side when the other side has already misconstrued where you stand and insulted you?

You see, I said none of that. I simply said that it is not universally accepted that immigration should be illegal, and that the history of this country makes a good argument against the position that too much immigration is bad for the economy, or the country as a whole. But, like the OP suggests, you can't see past your ideology enough to contemplate that, so instead use charged language like 'invade' to frame it under your ideology.

 

[kia75]

Do you see now the problem eskimospy with the Right leaving an ideological stance and entertaining this? In the space of one post, we've gone from people here illegally, plus bringing/having children here illegally (and Yes, I know having a kid here is not illegal, but, the kid would never have been here had the parent not been here illegally, so it's the same affect), to 'Horrible Righty, you're not a Native American, so who are you to say your established country should take exception and - gasp - take action to prevent itself from being illegally invaded by a neighboring country?'

Instead of starting from what should be, and then working back towards it with realistic compromises to get as close to what should be as possible, the line has already been drawn that if you don't support "immigrants" (notice how the word illegal got dropped off there), you're basically xenophobic. How does one compromise with the other side when the other side has already misconstrued where you stand and insulted you?

The idea isn't that conservatives have only a single ideology, it's that they prize their ideology above coming up with solutions. So there are small government ideologies, there are economic liberty ideologies, there are immigration ideologies, Christianity ideologies, and that conservatives that have these ideologies won't budge on those ideologies, even if they get their desired results.

The posts here sort of confirm that. The conservative immigration ideologues believe in their version of immigration and won't compromise until they get what they want. Again, not all conservative have an immigration ideology, but those that do put that ideology above getting what they want. Look at the pro-life take on abortion, in which the right's solutions (abstinence only education) actually increase abortions, the opposite of what they want. Look at the free market libertarians who oppose government interventions that make a market more free (i.e. monopoly busting). The idea of a free market is more important then actually having an actual free market.


The left on the other hand put more emphasis on getting what they can over winning ideological battles. Look at gun control. Many on the left want stronger and more far-reaching gun control, some want to ban guns entirely. Instead of blindly opposing all guns, the left instead tries to get as much as they want and ban assault rifles or other scary looking guns. They limit magazine sizes and other such stuff. Banning scary guns. As conservative will tell you time and time again, banning scary guns and limiting magazines does nothing for real gun control, but the left fight for such bills because that's what they think they can get. See Obamacare where the left actually want Universal health care but instead tried to compromise down to the Republican health care plan. The left puts forward mobility on an issue above ideology.

 

[chucky2]

You see, I said none of that. I simply said that it is not universally accepted that immigration should be illegal, and that the history of this country makes a good argument against the position that too much immigration is bad for the economy, or the country as a whole. But, like the OP suggests, you can't see past your ideology enough to contemplate that, so instead use charged language like 'invade' to frame it under your ideology.

You said:

"You see the ideology is that immigrants are bad,"

I never said that.

" which you espouse with out even knowing it is a ideology that is not shared."

I didn't espouse it, nor did I propose that everyone agrees with it (although there are many I'm sure that do).

The left see that we have had this same argument about ever wave of immigrants for the last 200 years.

Corerct. The Left cannot fall over itself fast enough to have White Guilt and have a Bleeding Heart, that is a given. What is not a given is if in this day in age, with our established borders, do we need to allow tens of millions to invade. This has now been turned into "immigration".

The Irish did not destroy America and take away all our jobs, neither will the Mexicans."

Well newsflash for you, illegals have taken jobs from Americans (both taken the job, and taken a job an American could have done but was filled by an illegal), are in these jobs, and will be in the future. Worse, their kids, who never would have been here in the numbers they're here in now will be competing with what are now modern day Native Americans (that is, Americans born here to at least one parent who is an American). So your last line is the most incorrect of all.

Back to your last post:

You have started from a position that "immigration" is good and that I'm against it. Unfortunately, that is not my position. My position is that this is (and we can go back in time, to at least the 80's) modern times, we have these things called borders. We have this thing called immigration law. We expect people coming into the country to abide by these laws. When they don't, we call them illegals. We also, and this number is debatable - an actual analysis and debate could be had here, have a need for a set number of these legal immigrants. If we need 1M, then we need 1M. If we need 5M, we need 5M. If we need 500k, we need 500k. What we don't need is tens of millions. We don't need to have so many we're teaching their language in all our schools and causing gov and business to have to offer everything bilingually. We have decades crossed the point of allowing the - in reality - unchecked invasion.

Really, none of what I type is extreme or some kind of xenophobic ideology. It's how every other modernized country on Earth handles their immigration policy. It's not that I'm so far out, it's that you are. You have taken an illegal invasion problem and conflated it with "immigration" and "bad for our economy". Your "immigration" is a complete mischaracterization of the actual problem, and your second "bad for our economy" is a highly debatable point that is a second issue after the issue of 'Should people be here illegally in such numbers our country has an illegal invasion problem?' is answered.

According to this study I'm "ideological" because I have correctly recognized the root of the issue, choose to address it first, and then work towards secondary issues. How is that ideological? Would not that be pragmatic?

 

[OverVolt]

Hmm? Whats going on.

Voting for group benefits in practice ends up with you voting away your own societal privileges to whatever group that is voting selfishly. They made a table about it.

[Insert table 4]

I also really like the tables.

 

[OverVolt]

Unsurprisingly, surveys have consistently found that while the ACA itself is not especially popular with Americans, nearly all of its The Ideological Right vs. The Group Benefits Left individual provisions win majority approval—some by overwhelming margins (see Table 9)— reflecting the symbolic-vs.-operational divide that reliably characterizes American public opinion.

[Insert Table 9]

So they are saying people vote democrat and then regret it when their lofty ideology becomes law?

Cool table bro!

They can have all the lofty non-functional ideas they want so long as they don't actually try to make it law.

 

[nehalem256]

You see, I said none of that. I simply said that it is not universally accepted that immigration should be illegal, and that the history of this country makes a good argument against the position that too much immigration is bad for the economy, or the country as a whole. But, like the OP suggests, you can't see past your ideology enough to contemplate that, so instead use charged language like 'invade' to frame it under your ideology.

So which countries in the world where you can move there and automatically be granted citizenship?

 

[fskimospy]

The idea isn't that conservatives have only a single ideology, it's that they prize their ideology above coming up with solutions. So there are small government ideologies, there are economic liberty ideologies, there are immigration ideologies, Christianity ideologies, and that conservatives that have these ideologies won't budge on those ideologies, even if they get their desired results.

The posts here sort of confirm that. The conservative immigration ideologues believe in their version of immigration and won't compromise until they get what they want. Again, not all conservative have an immigration ideology, but those that do put that ideology above getting what they want. Look at the pro-life take on abortion, in which the right's solutions (abstinence only education) actually increase abortions, the opposite of what they want. Look at the free market libertarians who oppose government interventions that make a market more free (i.e. monopoly busting). The idea of a free market is more important then actually having an actual free market.

The left on the other hand put more emphasis on getting what they can over winning ideological battles. Look at gun control. Many on the left want stronger and more far-reaching gun control, some want to ban guns entirely. Instead of blindly opposing all guns, the left instead tries to get as much as they want and ban assault rifles or other scary looking guns. They limit magazine sizes and other such stuff. Banning scary guns. As conservative will tell you time and time again, banning scary guns and limiting magazines does nothing for real gun control, but the left fight for such bills because that's what they think they can get. See Obamacare where the left actually want Universal health care but instead tried to compromise down to the Republican health care plan. The left puts forward mobility on an issue above ideology.

This thread is pretty illuminating and you pretty much hit the nail on the head. The study describes how conservatives prize ideological purity over dealmaking and basically every post by a conservative person here is them justifying why it is okay to do that.

 

[OverVolt]

So which countries in the world where you can move there and automatically be granted citizenship?

He must be confused about what a passport does. I forget was he a democrat?

Aghhhh I'm so bad. hehe.

 

[chucky2]

The idea isn't that conservatives have only a single ideology, it's that they prize their ideology above coming up with solutions. So there are small government ideologies, there are economic liberty ideologies, there are immigration ideologies, Christianity ideologies, and that conservatives that have these ideologies won't budge on those ideologies, even if they get their desired results.

We are back to wanting me to budge on supporting the guy raping my wife and daughter not using a condom because that's his right. Using a condom is a secondary issue that I'm not even willing to entertain until we solve the primary problem, which is him raping my wife and daughter. But, by framing the issue in the media as 'That Rightie is against individual rights!', we don't even get to the real issue, we simply have to spend time on the narrative being pushed. Addressing the root issue is common sense, not ideology. If common sense is ideology I'm not sure what else to say... Perhaps our illegal invasion issue was too cut and dried. Maybe I should have picked abortion, it is far more ideological.

The posts here sort of confirm that. The conservative immigration ideologues believe in their version of immigration and won't compromise until they get what they want. Again, not all conservative have an immigration ideology, but those that do put that ideology above getting what they want.

Again, back to the wife and daughter example. How can I compromise on something that is so black and white? Example: Amnesty for the illegals here already. I'm for it (why I'm for it doesn't matter). But can I entertain voting for that? Absolutely not. Is it because I'm an unmoving ideology meanie? No. It's because I know what Amnesty 2.0 looks like without a real secured border. So why would I get into a debate and support Amnesty 2.0 if first we haven't addressed our joke of a border? If I had a quarter for every Rightie I've heard say, Lock down the border and then we'll talk (about dealing with the tens of millions of illegals here already), I could retire now...

Look at the pro-life take on abortion, in which the right's solutions (abstinence only education) actually increase abortions, the opposite of what they want.

Yes, this is a much better example, should have used this instead. I agree, the far Right on this is simply crazy. From their religious POV though, it makes complete sense. It's like a Proggie telling us that Pepsi and Cheetos are really needed by those on welfare, you just can't get through either sides ideology.

Look at the free market libertarians who oppose government interventions that make a market more free (i.e. monopoly busting). The idea of a free market is more important then actually having an actual free market.

The left on the other hand put more emphasis on getting what they can over winning ideological battles. Look at gun control. Many on the left want stronger and more far-reaching gun control, some want to ban guns entirely. Instead of blindly opposing all guns, the left instead tries to get as much as they want and ban assault rifles or other scary looking guns. They limit magazine sizes and other such stuff. Banning scary guns. As conservative will tell you time and time again, banning scary guns and limiting magazines does nothing for real gun control, but the left fight for such bills because that's what they think they can get. See Obamacare where the left actually want Universal health care but instead tried to compromise down to the Republican health care plan. The left puts forward mobility on an issue above ideology.

Agreed. This is why no one on the Right will ever support those on the Left. Because they know the Left just wants full out bans, and is just working towards it bit by bit, indoctrination by indoctrination. Same for healthcare (I'm a Rightie - except for spending, now I'm a Spender like eski, providing he can deliver our $25k stimulus checks), and I'd rather have UHC. So would a lot of people on the Right. The problem is when they see how F'd up everything else is the Gov touches, it instills zero confidence in letting the Gov have another control on our lives - and paying them for it. And then, after UHC goes into affect, and the Gov f*cks it up...what then? Can't go back, it's Gov now (they don't release power or money well). I don't blame Righties for being skeptical. It's easy to want Gov everything when you have a view that money is meaningless and have an Anything Goes sense of morals.

Chuck

 

[OverVolt]

This thread is pretty illuminating and you pretty much hit the nail on the head. The study describes how conservatives prize ideological purity over dealmaking and basically every post by a conservative person here is them justifying why it is okay to do that.

Priority #1 is to keep the democrats from doing something stupid, and they do alot of stupid things.

Republicans would be coming up with their own solutions if the democrats weren't so busy cooking up terrible solutions that were half-thought out and will never work in the real world.

 

[chucky2]

This thread is pretty illuminating and you pretty much hit the nail on the head. The study describes how conservatives prize ideological purity over dealmaking and basically every post by a conservative person here is them justifying why it is okay to do that.

But I'm not willing to make a deal that the guy raping my wife and daughter is cool to not use a condom - I don't want him touching them in the first place.

Why are you advocating for him?

 

[ElFenix]

So they are saying people vote democrat and then regret it when their lofty ideology becomes law?

Cool table bro!

They can have all the lofty non-functional ideas they want so long as they don't actually try to make it law.

uh, no.

But I'm not willing to make a deal that the guy raping my wife and daughter is cool to not use a condom - I don't want him touching them in the first place.

Why are you advocating for him?

they raping everybody out here

 

[nehalem256]

This thread is pretty illuminating and you pretty much hit the nail on the head. The study describes how conservatives prize ideological purity over dealmaking and basically every post by a conservative person here is them justifying why it is okay to do that.

Conservatives are against deal making, because in most cases compromising involves conservatives losing 1/2 of what they want and liberals gaining 1/2 of what they want.

 

[fskimospy]

Priority #1 is to keep the democrats from doing something stupid, and they do alot of stupid things.

Republicans would be coming up with their own solutions if the democrats weren't so busy cooking up terrible solutions that were half-thought out and will never work in the real world.

Wait, you are saying that all the Republicans are so busy not passing Democratic legislation that they just don't have any time to make a proposal of their own?

You can't be serious.

 

[chucky2]

they raping everybody out here

haha

 

[fskimospy]

But I'm not willing to make a deal that the guy raping my wife and daughter is cool to not use a condom - I don't want him touching them in the first place.

Why are you advocating for him?

/facepalm

Again though, you guys are doing an admirable job of confirming this hypothesis, which brings me back to my initial question: how do you run a government where one half of it has become so radicalized that it views compromise as akin to having their family raped? I mean that as a genuine question.

 

[OverVolt]

/facepalm

Again though, you guys are doing an admirable job of confirming this hypothesis, which brings me back to my initial question: how do you run a government where one half of it has become so radicalized that it views compromise as akin to having their family raped? I mean that as a genuine question.

Its the American way actually. Ever take political science? We are classified as a 'weak state' because barring a crisis almost all legislation requires compromise to get passed. This is quite a bit different than say the Parliament in the UK. Once the MPs vote a certain way they get what they voted for.

Its a check/balance on power. That should be telling you something about the democrats as they rub up against it. But I know you don't see it that way. Its the same barrier that the Republicans hit during the Reagan era (thank god amirite?). Our system is working as intended.

Even though we are a democracy the majority cannot just steamroll over the minority power.

 

[fskimospy]

Its the American way actually. Ever take political science? We are classified as a 'weak state' because barring a crisis almost all legislation requires compromise to get passed. This is quite a bit different than say the Parliament in the UK. Once the MPs vote a certain way they get what they voted for.

Yes, that was my undergrad major. The US is not classified as a weak state; weak states are those states that lack the power to effectively tax and regulate within their borders (and prevent other countries from doing it).

Its a check/balance on power. That should be telling you something about the democrats as they rub up against it. But I know you don't see it that way. Its the same barrier that the Republicans hit during the Reagan era (thank god amirite?). Our system is working as intended.

I don't think you've gotten any of my posts. What I'm saying is that one of the two parties is broadly no longer interested in compromise and that's the problem.

 

[BUnit1701]

Yes, that was my undergrad major. The US is not classified as a weak state; weak states are those states that lack the power to effectively tax and regulate within their borders (and prevent other countries from doing it).



I don't think you've gotten any of my posts. What I'm saying is that one of the two parties is broadly no longer interested in compromise and that's the problem.

I'm glad you used that phrasing, 'no longer interested'. You see, we have compromised for over 50 years now, and we see the ruin produced. No more. Liberal policies are destructive and we will no longer allow you to implement them bit by bit over decades. We are on to your con.

 

[hal2kilo]

The idea isn't that conservatives have only a single ideology, it's that they prize their ideology above coming up with solutions. So there are small government ideologies, there are economic liberty ideologies, there are immigration ideologies, Christianity ideologies, and that conservatives that have these ideologies won't budge on those ideologies, even if they get their desired results.

The posts here sort of confirm that. The conservative immigration ideologues believe in their version of immigration and won't compromise until they get what they want. Again, not all conservative have an immigration ideology, but those that do put that ideology above getting what they want. Look at the pro-life take on abortion, in which the right's solutions (abstinence only education) actually increase abortions, the opposite of what they want. Look at the free market libertarians who oppose government interventions that make a market more free (i.e. monopoly busting). The idea of a free market is more important then actually having an actual free market.


The left on the other hand put more emphasis on getting what they can over winning ideological battles. Look at gun control. Many on the left want stronger and more far-reaching gun control, some want to ban guns entirely. Instead of blindly opposing all guns, the left instead tries to get as much as they want and ban assault rifles or other scary looking guns. They limit magazine sizes and other such stuff. Banning scary guns. As conservative will tell you time and time again, banning scary guns and limiting magazines does nothing for real gun control, but the left fight for such bills because that's what they think they can get. See Obamacare where the left actually want Universal health care but instead tried to compromise down to the Republican health care plan. The left puts forward mobility on an issue above ideology.

Pretty much this.
See my sig.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm glad you used that phrasing, 'no longer interested'. You see, we have compromised for over 50 years now, and we see the ruin produced. No more. Liberal policies are destructive and we will no longer allow you to implement them bit by bit over decades. We are on to your con.

Exhibit B right here.

How are you supposed to govern a country in a system that requires compromise when the other side behaves like this?

 

[OverVolt]

Yes, that was my undergrad major. The US is not classified as a weak state; weak states are those states that lack the power to effectively tax and regulate within their borders (and prevent other countries from doing it).



I don't think you've gotten any of my posts. What I'm saying is that one of the two parties is broadly no longer interested in compromise and that's the problem.

Guess I meant "politically weak" upon a little research. I didn't have much Political Science I'll tell ya that much . Thats probably why I got a B. Bet I got that question wrong, hah, thats scary.

The bolded part is an interesting take on the subject. But it goes both ways correct? The Democrats must not be willing to come around to the Repubs side either.

I did dig up this: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/o...re-lousy-forecasters.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I'm sooooo bad

 

[nehalem256]

Exhibit B right here.

How are you supposed to govern a country in a system that requires compromise when the other side behaves like this?

Well lets take immigration as an example of a compromise issue. Didn't Reagan give amnesty 30 years ago?

How did that work out? :hmm:

So why after witnessing that would Republicans then want to "compromise" and give amnesty again?

 

[chucky2]

/facepalm

It's a simple question, no need to beat yourself up about it. You either see the issue of the man raping my wife and daughter as a larger issue to be solved before we get into the debate if someone has the right or not to wear a condom when having sex with someone as the proper sequence of issues to be solved or not. It's very simple: Do you wish to solve the raping issue first, or, the right of condom wearing first?

So far what I'm seeing is 'Lets tackle the condom issue first and oh btw is it really rape or is it more like the guy simply has needs and you need to recognize them.' Facepalm indeed...

Again though, you guys are doing an admirable job of confirming this hypothesis, which brings me back to my initial question: how do you run a government where one half of it has become so radicalized that it views compromise as akin to having their family raped? I mean that as a genuine question.

I picked that example purely because it is cut and dried. There is no debate needed on it. No rational minded people would expect a man to have a debate on whether or not the guy raping his wife and daughter should have the right to decide to wear a condom or not. No rational minded people would focus on a secondary issue that pales in importance to the primary issue which is the rape, they would in fact first address the primary far more impacting issue, and then get to the secondary issue(s). According to this study, these rational minded people are in some circumstances called ideologues.

I like the attempt at narrative change btw... :thumbsup: